5 ms·

Take your pick: * Difficult to navigate in a narrow underwater structure without crashing * Signal penetration, or lack thereof, in an iron hull at the bottom

Take your pick: * Difficult to navigate in a narrow underwater structure without crashing * Signal penetration, or lack thereof, in an iron hull at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean * Extremely niche technology that would have few practical uses in other contexts since most of the seabed does not suffer from the same complexities as a shipwreck * Can't see for shit underwater in general * We already know whats down there and why it's down there, therefore unlikely to lead to significant new information * This could actually be considered desecrating a mass grave under maritime law

shadowgovt 2y ago
One does wonder precisely how many decades (or centuries) have to pass before "desecrating a mass grave" becomes "archaeology" (... "he ruminates while thinking about that fascinating Pompeii exhibit that toured through town one year...").
- refulgentis 2y ago
  I think they're just throwing answers out they would find plausible. They are not reflected by reality. (i.e. from inside, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pun18bi_0-g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pun18bi_0-g)
- snickerbockers 2y ago
  oh man, idk if you've ever been to the metropolitan museum of art in NYC, but they have dozens, maybe even hundreds, of dead bodies that were removed from their burial sites without consulting any next-of-kin (not that you'd be able to figure out who that is) on display in glass cases. But apparently its alright since nobody's left to argue on behalf of whatever pagan religion or cult they participated in.
  - bluGill 2y ago
    There is a museum near me with an Egyptian mummy on display and notes that the Egyptian government now wants it back even though it was legally bought from Egypt 100+ years ago. Last I heard it wasn't going back, but I suspect just a matter of time.
    - mschuster91 2y ago
      > even though it was legally bought from Egypt 100+ years ago One might ask - particularly in a colonial history case - if that "legal purchase" was made under fair conditions and not by exerting undue pressure, as it often happened.
      - ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
        Cultivating unfair conditions and exerting pressure is just good negotiation. The modern Egyptian government doesn't actually want mummies back, they just want to get paid again. They are going to use various means at their disposal to get paid once more. Which is "fair" in the All's fair in love and war sense. Edit: Egypt just wants to pivot a subscription model: https://tutankhamunexpo.com https://tutankhamunexpo.com
        mschuster91 2y ago
        > Cultivating unfair conditions and exerting pressure is just good negotiation. I heavily disagree. Bullying may work in a short term but in the mid to long term it can have disastrous consequences - we're seeing this play out right now with the US government and all its major allies looking for a way out and divesting from the US. Decades worth of "soft power" building effort and hundreds of thousands of lives lost in various wars (WW2 alone >400k!), for nothing, all gone in the space of a few months.
  - shadowgovt 2y ago
    An interesting counter-example is the Museum of Us in Balboa Park, San Diego. They have on display a Mexican mummy (if memory serves, naturally dessicated by a desert burial) that was smuggled across the border from Mexico to the US. At some point, the museum got in touch with Mexican authorities and agreed to repatriation. However, the museum they've worked with in Mexico doesn't really have use for the exhibit, so it's on indefinite loan to the Museum of Us with full understanding that this is a generous privilege provided by the museum in Mexico and the people of the nation. ... All in all, a quite excellent win-win negotiation to mutually-agreeable conclusion, it seems.
    - WalterBright 2y ago
      In the Ye Olde Curiosity Shop in Seattle, there's a mummy of a cowboy on display that was found in the desert. He died of a gunshot wound. Nobody knows who he was.
- Lammy 2y ago
  It depends on the profit motive of who might want to use a morality argument to maintain their exclusivity lol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premier_Exhibitions#RMS_Titanic_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premier_Exhibitions#RMS_Titani....
- throwup238 2y ago
  It's not usually time based. Some countries have laws like NAGPRA in the US that protect the graves of specific groups regardless of age but otherwise it's a very fuzzy line to draw. The two extremes are: - If the polity that the person belonged to still exists, then it's a very sensitive issue - like US civil war graves. Likewise if there is a clear cultural continuity - for example France's first republic to the modern era. Both of which are themselves fuzzy criteria but largely fall into the desecration camp (although there are exceptions, not all cultures view it as taboo when done for scientific/historical purposes). - If neither the polity nor the culture - often delineated by writing system or state apparatus or other semi-arbitrary line - still exist then the grave is pretty much fair game ethically speaking (legally it depends on the jurisdiction). That fuzziness in the middle is very problematic but modern archaeologists have a whole process for reaching out to governments and getting consent from any descendant communities if applicable, and then coming up with an ethical plan to rebury/preserve the remains afterwards. IME the majority of such communities are very cooperative because it helps them answer questions about their past.
- fortran77 2y ago
  or the bog people of Ireland!
billforsternz 2y ago
One of those rare occasions where I can't possibly just salute an excellent comment with a mere upvote. Superbly balanced effort, each bullet point equally devastating and perfectly expressed.
- refulgentis 2y ago
  You have inspired me to do a quick Fisk-ing, in homage to rationality, remaining tethered to reality, and preferring some research before free-associating, if only to avoid information pollution. (note: we can quickly discover footage from inside the Titanic that obviates all these points. Here, we endeavor to cover this from an angle of how you could detect the arguments presented were weak, without that knowledge) * Difficult to navigate in a narrow underwater structure without crashing Passenger ship? Too narrow for a drone? * Signal penetration, or lack thereof, in an iron hull at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean Wireless signals aren't used for companion submersibles. * Extremely niche technology that would have few practical uses in other contexts since most of the seabed does not suffer from the same complexities as a shipwreck The seabed does not have any tight spaces? * Can't see for shit underwater in general We are commenting on an article that reconstructed a massive ship as a 3D model via photographs underwater * We already know whats down there and why it's down there, therefore unlikely to lead to significant new information We are commenting on an article that reconstructed the ship from the exterior despite this same factor applying. * This could actually be considered desecrating a mass grave under maritime law Not even wrong. Just throwing stuff out there.
  - billforsternz 2y ago
    Bravo. I am speechless at this point.
  - trulyamazing 2y ago
    [dead]
Lammy 2y ago
> * Extremely niche technology that would have few practical uses in other contexts since most of the seabed does not suffer from the same complexities as a shipwreck This is why the wreck of the Titanic got found in the first place though https://www.nationalgeographic.com/premium/article/titanic-was-found-during-secret-cold-war-navy-mission https://www.nationalgeographic.com/premium/article/titanic-w... (https://archive.is/jibqF https://archive.is/jibqF)
WalterBright 2y ago
> desecrating a mass grave under maritime law That never made sense to me. Massive efforts are made to retrieve bodies from airplane crashes, sunk boats, collapsed buildings, etc. Why is recovery from some other disaster sites "desecration"?
- refulgentis 2y ago
  It's not, its an internet comment with a laymen throwing shit at the wall and seeing what sticks for conversation's sake. i.e. Thought experiment: in their comment, s/maritime law/aviation law. In your comment s/airplane crashes/sunken ships. It's the same calorie-free conversation with just as much basis in reality.

shadowgovt 2y ago

One does wonder precisely how many decades (or centuries) have to pass before "desecrating a mass grave" becomes "archaeology" (... "he ruminates while thinking about that fascinating Pompeii exhibit that toured through town one year...").

refulgentis 2y ago
I think they're just throwing answers out they would find plausible. They are not reflected by reality. (i.e. from inside, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pun18bi_0-g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pun18bi_0-g)
snickerbockers 2y ago
oh man, idk if you've ever been to the metropolitan museum of art in NYC, but they have dozens, maybe even hundreds, of dead bodies that were removed from their burial sites without consulting any next-of-kin (not that you'd be able to figure out who that is) on display in glass cases. But apparently its alright since nobody's left to argue on behalf of whatever pagan religion or cult they participated in.
- bluGill 2y ago
  There is a museum near me with an Egyptian mummy on display and notes that the Egyptian government now wants it back even though it was legally bought from Egypt 100+ years ago. Last I heard it wasn't going back, but I suspect just a matter of time.
  - mschuster91 2y ago
    > even though it was legally bought from Egypt 100+ years ago One might ask - particularly in a colonial history case - if that "legal purchase" was made under fair conditions and not by exerting undue pressure, as it often happened.
    - ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
      Cultivating unfair conditions and exerting pressure is just good negotiation. The modern Egyptian government doesn't actually want mummies back, they just want to get paid again. They are going to use various means at their disposal to get paid once more. Which is "fair" in the All's fair in love and war sense. Edit: Egypt just wants to pivot a subscription model: https://tutankhamunexpo.com https://tutankhamunexpo.com
      - mschuster91 2y ago
        > Cultivating unfair conditions and exerting pressure is just good negotiation. I heavily disagree. Bullying may work in a short term but in the mid to long term it can have disastrous consequences - we're seeing this play out right now with the US government and all its major allies looking for a way out and divesting from the US. Decades worth of "soft power" building effort and hundreds of thousands of lives lost in various wars (WW2 alone >400k!), for nothing, all gone in the space of a few months.
- shadowgovt 2y ago
  An interesting counter-example is the Museum of Us in Balboa Park, San Diego. They have on display a Mexican mummy (if memory serves, naturally dessicated by a desert burial) that was smuggled across the border from Mexico to the US. At some point, the museum got in touch with Mexican authorities and agreed to repatriation. However, the museum they've worked with in Mexico doesn't really have use for the exhibit, so it's on indefinite loan to the Museum of Us with full understanding that this is a generous privilege provided by the museum in Mexico and the people of the nation. ... All in all, a quite excellent win-win negotiation to mutually-agreeable conclusion, it seems.
  - WalterBright 2y ago
    In the Ye Olde Curiosity Shop in Seattle, there's a mummy of a cowboy on display that was found in the desert. He died of a gunshot wound. Nobody knows who he was.
Lammy 2y ago
It depends on the profit motive of who might want to use a morality argument to maintain their exclusivity lol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premier_Exhibitions#RMS_Titanic_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premier_Exhibitions#RMS_Titani....
throwup238 2y ago
It's not usually time based. Some countries have laws like NAGPRA in the US that protect the graves of specific groups regardless of age but otherwise it's a very fuzzy line to draw. The two extremes are: - If the polity that the person belonged to still exists, then it's a very sensitive issue - like US civil war graves. Likewise if there is a clear cultural continuity - for example France's first republic to the modern era. Both of which are themselves fuzzy criteria but largely fall into the desecration camp (although there are exceptions, not all cultures view it as taboo when done for scientific/historical purposes). - If neither the polity nor the culture - often delineated by writing system or state apparatus or other semi-arbitrary line - still exist then the grave is pretty much fair game ethically speaking (legally it depends on the jurisdiction). That fuzziness in the middle is very problematic but modern archaeologists have a whole process for reaching out to governments and getting consent from any descendant communities if applicable, and then coming up with an ethical plan to rebury/preserve the remains afterwards. IME the majority of such communities are very cooperative because it helps them answer questions about their past.
fortran77 2y ago
or the bog people of Ireland!

billforsternz 2y ago

One of those rare occasions where I can't possibly just salute an excellent comment with a mere upvote. Superbly balanced effort, each bullet point equally devastating and perfectly expressed.

refulgentis 2y ago
You have inspired me to do a quick Fisk-ing, in homage to rationality, remaining tethered to reality, and preferring some research before free-associating, if only to avoid information pollution. (note: we can quickly discover footage from inside the Titanic that obviates all these points. Here, we endeavor to cover this from an angle of how you could detect the arguments presented were weak, without that knowledge) * Difficult to navigate in a narrow underwater structure without crashing Passenger ship? Too narrow for a drone? * Signal penetration, or lack thereof, in an iron hull at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean Wireless signals aren't used for companion submersibles. * Extremely niche technology that would have few practical uses in other contexts since most of the seabed does not suffer from the same complexities as a shipwreck The seabed does not have any tight spaces? * Can't see for shit underwater in general We are commenting on an article that reconstructed a massive ship as a 3D model via photographs underwater * We already know whats down there and why it's down there, therefore unlikely to lead to significant new information We are commenting on an article that reconstructed the ship from the exterior despite this same factor applying. * This could actually be considered desecrating a mass grave under maritime law Not even wrong. Just throwing stuff out there.
- billforsternz 2y ago
  Bravo. I am speechless at this point.
- trulyamazing 2y ago
  [dead]

Lammy 2y ago

> * Extremely niche technology that would have few practical uses in other contexts since most of the seabed does not suffer from the same complexities as a shipwreck This is why the wreck of the Titanic got found in the first place though https://www.nationalgeographic.com/premium/article/titanic-was-found-during-secret-cold-war-navy-mission https://www.nationalgeographic.com/premium/article/titanic-w... (https://archive.is/jibqF https://archive.is/jibqF)

WalterBright 2y ago

> desecrating a mass grave under maritime law That never made sense to me. Massive efforts are made to retrieve bodies from airplane crashes, sunk boats, collapsed buildings, etc. Why is recovery from some other disaster sites "desecration"?

refulgentis 2y ago
It's not, its an internet comment with a laymen throwing shit at the wall and seeing what sticks for conversation's sake. i.e. Thought experiment: in their comment, s/maritime law/aviation law. In your comment s/airplane crashes/sunken ships. It's the same calorie-free conversation with just as much basis in reality.